In this late-filed motor accident appeal, the registered appellant argued that transferred ownership and possession exempted him from liability for an accident causing pedestrian injury. The court relied on Apex Court precedent holding transferred parties not automatically absolving the registered owner and dismissed the appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
TUESDAY ,THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 24TH ASWINA, 1940
MACA.No. 1379 of 2007
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1731/2001 of M.A.C.T.,PERUMBAVOOR DATED 21-07-2006
APPELLANT:
P.M.SUNNY, PANALICKAL HOUSE, PIRAVOM.
BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
3 P.H.ABBAS, S/O. HAMSA, PUTHUKADEN HOUSE, PALLIPRAM KARA, MARAMPILLY VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.JOY C. PAUL
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the registered owner of the offending vehicle, in so far as liability has been
fixed upon his shoulders. Since the appeal is belated, the delay is sought to be condoned by filing a petition [C.M. Appln. No. 1354 of 2007], where notice was ordered on 31.07.2007. Notice sent to the second respondent [rider of
MACA.No. 1379 of 2007
2
the motor cycle involved in the accident] has not been
returned after service. No steps have been taken by the appellant, despite the position brought to his notice by the Registrar [Judicial], when two weeks' time was sought for, on 02.06.2011. The matter has been listed in the 'defect list'. The point to be considered is whether there is any scope for interference in the appeal [with regard to
the nature of contention raised] and to have the delay condoned, if there exists any such merit. Accordingly, this Court finds it appropriate to consider the merit of the case as well.
respondent before the Tribunal] is that the claimant who is a pedestrian was knocked down by a motor cycle bearing No.KL 7K 2413 [which was earlier owned by the appellant and subsequently transferred to the 3rd respondent] while it was being ridden by the second respondent [1st respondent before the Tribunal]. It was contended by the appellant that by virtue of transfer of the vehicle from the ownership and possession of the appellant herein, the liability, if at all any, was to be satisfied by the 3rd respondent. The
MACA.No. 1379 of 2007
3
evidence adduced before the Tribunal consists of the oral
testimony of the claimant as PW1, supported by documents A1 to A10. The evidence adduced from the part of the respondents before the Tribunal consists of the deposition of the appellant/2nd respondent as RW1, besides the exhibits produced as X1 & X1(a) [case diary in respect of Crime No. 84/01 of Kodanad Police Station and kycheet issued by the 2nd respondent to the Judl. 1st Class Magistrate's Court I, Perumbavoor].
the injury sustained by the claimant. The appellant and the 3rd respondent were found liable to satisfy the same in equal proportion. This was done so, since there was no valid insurance coverage for the vehicle, as on the date of accident. The contention raised before this Court by the appellant is that since he had adduced evidence to the effect that, though he was the registered owner of the vehicle, since the ownership and possession was transferred to the 3rd respondent, the entire liability should have been
mulcted upon the shoulders of the 3rd respondent. This
MACA.No. 1379 of 2007
4
Court does not find it appropriate to accept the said
proposition in view of the many a decision rendered by the Apex Court including in the recent ruling rendered in
Naveenkumar Vs. Vijay kumar and others [ 2018 KHC 6083 = AIR 2018 SC 983] holding that, where the registered owner, who purported to have transferred the vehicle, continues to be the owner as reflected in the records of the registering authority, he would not stand absolved from the liability.
In the said circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the appeal and it stands dismissed along with C.M. Application to condone the delay.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
kmd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a registered owner of a motor vehicle can be absolved of liability claiming transfer of ownership and possession.
Whether a belated motor accident appeal should be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Naveenkumar Vs. Vijay kumar and othersRelied on¶36
Naveenkumar Vs. Vijay kumar and others [2018 KHC 6083 = AIR 2018 SC 983] · Who else cites this
P.M.Sunny
Sadanandan
Sudeesh
P.H.Abbas
P.R.Ramachandran Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
